Moral science has two halves. There are the implications of thinking straight about fact and value (ideal theory) and there are the implications of not thinking straight. Ideal theory is the foundation, error theory the daily battle.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

The claim that correlations between sunspot activity and global temperature do not imply causality comes from a pair of global warming religionists, enlisted by the American Physical Society to put down skepticism in the ranks about global warming dogma. It is a great example of how intellectually dishonest the eco-religionists are.

Sunspot activity leaves an isotope signature in the geologic record. So does temperature, allowing researchers to compare contemporaneous sunspot activity and temperature, going back many thousands of years. On every time scale, the level of solar-magnetic activity (aka sunspot activity, or the solar wind) consistently "explains" statistically about 90% of temperature variation. (The geological evidence is amassed for laymen in Fred Singer’s 2007 book Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1500 years, but none of this is new to professional climatologists.)

Do our religionists think that the temperature of the earth is somehow determining the level of solar activity? Do they imagine some mysterious third influence, driving both the solar wind and global temperature? Even when there is every reason to expect the solar weather to have all kinds of affects on global temperature? We literally live inside the sun's "atmosphere," its extended corona of solar wind. How could that NOT affect global temperature?

Even if the mechanism is not fully understood (though there looks to be a pretty good chance that Svensmark has it nailed), the existence and direction of causality are highly certain. This is as close to having "proof" as empirical science gets. The strength of the for causality is not dependent on there being ANY theory of how that causality is being effected. What matters is that there is a thorougly documented physical relationship. It is just gravy that Svensmark also has a marvelous theory about how the relationship works that accounts for its observed operation with a high degree of precision. The causal relationship itself is just a fact.

In contrast to well evidenced GCR theory of global temperature change, these global warming religionists have all kinds of things in their models that are purely speculative. There is no evidence in the geological record that global temperature was EVER driven by the level of CO2. We know CO2 must have some effect, but it seems to be too small to measure. Yet the religionists are content with counterfactual models in which global temperature is primarily a function of CO2, while they omit from their models the one thing we actually know from the geologic record is driving temperature: the solar wind.

Damned eco-freak religionists, glomming onto any excuse to attack fossil fuel burning, thinking they are protecting the earth from being gobbled up by human economic activity. That is what is really driving these scientific frauds. They don't give a damn about temperature, which is why they are willing to be so nonsensical about temperature. They are just a bunch of leftist anti-capitalists.

Of course they are wrong about economics too. Economic growth (also called progress) is the best thing for the planet. We learn to do more with less, in effect expanding the planet's resources. But the left wing trash will never get it, because they don't think straight. Even in the sciences, it is not just that they SAY whatever supports their presumptions. They actually think it. They are self-lobotomized logical idiots.

Here is a direct link to the eco-freaks' dishonest defense of AGW orthodoxy. The authors are David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz, a pair of physicists from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

Justin has nothing of substance to say. It is truethat I hurl some occasional insults, but they are always backed up by reason and evidence. The left is nothing but unsupported invective as a way of avoiding reason and evidence.

"Cheap, ugly insults"? Not at all. The first two, "idiot and Moron" completely applies to people who are of sub-average intelligence. Ancients knew that the giant ball of fire in the sky drove the weather, so in the modern world you must either be and "idiot" or a "moron" to believe it is the tiny amount of smoke coming out of your car.

Perverts seems equally accurate as those who would pursue what they know as false as being true are "perverted".

"Damned Eco-freak" Considering the number of members of this community who believe that human beings are not natural how could this be anything other than completely accurate also? The "Damned eco-freaks" at PITA compared CHICKENS to human beings saying that there was a "holocaust" of "fryer chickens" in America. The "Damned eco-freaks" pushed for the worldwide ban of DDT, possibly the greatest chemical ever invented. The blood of millions of malaria victims, mostly children, stains their hands.

It is true that describing the mind of a Leftard is ugly. It is also a fact that truth in regard to what Leftists actually accomplish is without doubt, an insult to them, very often to their very humanity.

About Me

Here is a short bio I sent to press people covering the Flight 93 memorial debacle. My training is as an economist. I was in the PhD program in economics at Stanford until my research led me more towards moral theory and constitutional law, at which point I dropped the program and started working on my own. I was writing a book on republicanism (the system of liberty under law) for World Ahead Publishing when I discovered that the Flight 93 memorial was going to be a terrorist memorial mosque. World Ahead agreed to first publish my book about this rehijacking of Flight 93 (Crescent of Betrayal, temporarily available for free download at CrescentOfBetrayal.com). This is not my first venture into journalism. Over the years I have been a writer, opinions editor, and advisor for Stanford’s conservative campus newspaper The Stanford Review, and am currently on the Review’s board of directors.